IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANDLADESH

HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

Present:

Mr. Justice Md. Badruzzaman.

And

Mr. Justice Sashanka Shekhar Sarkar

First Appeal No. 468 of 2010.

Matiar Rahman (Salam) Hawlader being died his legal heirs 1(a) Shahan Begum and others

………Plaintiffs- Appellants.

-Versus-

Md. Habibur Rahman (Khoka) Hawlader being died

his legal heirs 1(a) Mst. Samsun Nahar and others. ……..Defendants- Respondents

Mr. Tapos Kumar Biswas along with

Mr. Redwanul Karim, Advocates

… For the Appellants

Mrs. Anjuman Ara Begum, Advocate

… For respondents

Heard on: 28.02.2024, 29.02.2024 and 04.03.2024 Judgment on: 11.03.2024.

Sashanka Shekhar Sarkar, J:

This appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 14.09.2010 (decree signed on 20.09.10) passed by learned Joint District Judge, 1st Court, Madaripur in Title Suit No. 17 of 2007 dismissing the suit.

The appellants as plaintiffs instituted Title Suit No. 17 of 2007 in 1st Court of Joint District Judge, Madaripur impleading the respondents as defendants praying for the following reliefs:

1. A decree of declaration of title against the defendant Nos. 1-3 in respect of the suit land.

2. A decree that the Kabala No. 4182/4186 dated 27.07.1983 and Kabala No. 4197 dated 28.07.1983 executed by Mamota Rani

in favour of defendant Nos. 1-3 in pursuance of order of Certificate Case No. 11MT of 1975-76 are forged, fabricated, collusive, inoperative and by virtue of which the decree of Title Suit No. 140 of 1984 is illegal and inoperative.

The case of the plaintiffs in short is that Benilal Kundu Bhuiyan, Gobinda Lal Kundu Bhuiyan, Hiralal Kundu Bhuiyan, Kaloshashi Kundu, Baloram Kundu, Jogabondhu Kundu, Durgacharan Kundu, Debendranath Shaha, Paresh Lal Shaha, Vashani Kundu being the owners of 1.99 acres of land of R.S. Khatian No. 91 and R.S. Plots No. 139, 919, 154 and 140 made a settlement (pattan) in favour of Azizunnessa, the mother of the plaintiffs. During her enjoyment and possession, Rent Case No. 1225 of 1956 for arrear of rents was started which, was decreed on a compromise on 24.11.1956. The landlords admitting the right, title and possession of the Mother of the plaintiffs came to the compromise in the rent case but subsequently record was wrongly prepared in the name of previous land lords instead of their mother. Though the update record was not prepared in their mother’s name nevertheless the plaintiffs did not face any obstructions or hindrance in maintaining peaceful possession. Azizunnessa died leaving behind her husband, the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 1 as her heirs

and, each son got 2837 and each daughter got 14 134 decimals of land.

The defendant No. 1 is a brother of the plaintiffs who using the name of one Mamta Rani filed a Rent Case for depriving the plaintiffs (his other brothers) claiming to have purchased from their mother for arrears of rents. Practically 3.19 acres of land of S.A. Khatian No. 89 and R.S. Khatian No. 91 was never auction sold and Mamota Rani never purchased the same. The story of auction purchase by Mamota Rani is false and fabricated and subsequent purchase by the defendants from Mamota Rani by three separate deeds are also false, fabricated, co